9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (10) TMI 52X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s engaged in the business of providing Angadia service. A search was carried out by Enforcement Directorate under section 37 of the Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999, in the luggage van of Aashram Express on 09.07.2001. This resulted into seizure of cash, bullion and jewellery worth Rs. 3.34 crores (rounded off) being carried by various angadias including the petitioner. The assessee was thereupon subjected to proceedings under section 158BD of the Act for a block period ending on 17.07.2001. In response to the notice, the petitioner filed the 'Nil' return. However, during the course of assessment, under a letter dated 25.02.2005, the petitioner offered an amount of Rs. 15.50 lakhs by way of income, requesting the authority that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aintainable. Regarding the delay, the petitioner contended as under: "Thus, the delay upto the date of communication of order of the ITAT was on account of applicant's bonafide belief that its appeal before the Hon'ble ITAT was maintainable in view of various judicial pronouncements and therefore till the receipt of ITAT Order, the Applicant Firm had every reason of succeeding the appeal if the matter would have been heard on merits. The delay between the date of communication of order of the ITAT and the date of filing of this revision petition is on account of collecting the appeal documents and other case records from the Office of the Advocate who had represented the matter before the Hon'ble ITAT, thereafter, preparation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ct matter of the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) or before the Tribunal. Bar of revision under section 264 of the Act would therefore not apply to such an issue. He further submitted that the Commissioner committed an error in not condoning the delay which was otherwise well explained. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel Shri Bhatt for the department opposed the petition contending that the Commissioner has given proper reasons. The petitioner had made a concession to add Rs. 15.50 lakhs by way of undisclosed income. No reasons are cited why such disclosure should be allowed to be withdrawn. While filing appeal against the order of assessment, the petitioner consciously confined the appeal to the question of surcharge, clearly i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r filed the revision petition nearly 10 months later on 19.12.2009. This further period of delay is nowhere explained except for the petitioner stating in general that it required to collect documents and orders. The Commissioner was therefore justified in not condoning the delay. 11. The question of maintainability of the revision petition before the Commissioner is a contentious issue and we would reserve answer to such a question for a better case. In the present petition, we are not inclined to enter into this arena since we have already held that the revision petition was barred by limitation and unexplained delay. There is an additional reason why we are not inclined to examine this aspect and it is this. In the revision petition, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
